geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guillaume Nodet" <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:48:58 GMT
The problem is that comments at the top of the pom are lost
when releasing.
The workaround is to move the comments (ASF header)
down into the <project> tag.
I have just done that for xbean, and it works nicely:
  http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/trunk/pom.xml?view=markup
and the tagged one
  http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/geronimo/xbean/tags/xbean-2.8/pom.xml?view=markup

Anyway, a dryRun is always recommended i think.

On 12/22/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> IIRC, the maven release plugin did some odd things to the POM; I
> recall seeing this in SMX.  I recommend that we do a dry run on a
> trash release and look at the results to see if we are happy with the
> outcome.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> > I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good,
> > because people can build them locally, check that everything
> > is ok (for legal reasons), and vote.  This is much more difficult
> > for Geronimo server, of course, and may not be applied.
> >
> > This works well, I think, if the release process is just
> >   mvn release:prepare release:perform
> > which should be the case for all projects ideally.
> > The benefit is that the jars will be deployed to their final
> > destination
> > as part of the relase, without having to tweak / corrupting maven
> > repository metadata by copying from a staging repo.
> >
> > On 12/21/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> Thanks...this was the missing context for me.  I spect I'm not the
> >> only one who doesn't hang on the incubator thread so this helps.
> >>
> >> I'm confused about Roy's comments as there are specific requirements
> >> for including legal stuff in the binaries.  Sounds like he is
> >> advocating everyone building their own copy and validating it.
> >>
> >> Since this is a change in process it would be good to outline how you
> >> propose it working for the benefit of the many on the list that don't
> >> have the benefit of your thinking apart from the reference above.
> >>
> >> I would very much like to see us change the process and the specs are
> >> probably a really good place to start.  I'm +1 for changing the
> >> process.  I would very much like to get the new process documented so
> >> that you don't end up becoming the release dog and have everyone
> >> making up a new way each time which is currently where we are at.
> >>
> >> Other people's thoughts?
> >>
> >> Matt Hogstrom
> >> matt@hogstrom.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> >
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet

Mime
View raw message